the US soldiers could be talking over XBox live while playing Modern Warfare.It's a disgrace and clear there was no danger to them or anyone else from these individuals.I know soldiers on the whole are heroes but these guys are wholly unprofessional and treating this conflict as a big shoot em up game.

It's also worrying that the second half of the video was taken down by youtube, when it apparently shows the americans firing on a truck that comes to pick up the bodies, injuring two children in the process.

The way the pilot and the weapons officer laugh it off as if they're playing a computer is something you don't get in the British Army.

There's pride, professionalism and tradition over here.

I always hated training with American soldiers on exercise. Fun, nice enough guys but not worthy of the uniform.

Last edited by British_Pharaoh on Sun Jul 25, 2010 7:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.

"There is but one thing of real value: to cultivate truth and justice and to live without anger in the midst of lying and unjust men"

A whistle-blower website has published what it says are more than 90,000 United States military and diplomatic reports about Afghanistan filed between 2004 and January of this year.

The first-hand accounts are the military's own raw data on the war, including numbers killed, casualties, threat reports and the like, according to Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks.org, which published the material Sunday.

"It is the total history of the Afghan war from 2004 to 2010, with some important exceptions -- U.S. Special Forces, CIA activity and most of the activity of other non-U.S. groups," Assange said.

CNN has not independently confirmed the authenticity of the documents. The Department of Defense will not comment on them until the Pentagon has had a chance to look at them, a Defense official told CNN.

Assange declined to tell CNN where he got the documents. He claims the documents reveal the "squalor" of war, uncovering how many relatively small incidents have added up to huge numbers of dead civilians.

Just In blog: What is WikiLeaks?

The significance lies in "all of these people being killed in the small events that we haven't heard about that numerically eclipse the big casualty events. It's the boy killed by a shell that missed a target," he told CNN.

"What we haven't seen previously is all those individual deaths," he said. "We've seen just the number and like Stalin said, 'One man's death is a tragedy, a million dead is a statistic.' So, we've seen the statistic."

CNN iReport: Help crowdsource the documents

WikiLeaks publishes anonymously submitted documents, video and other sensitive materials after vetting them, it says. It claims never to have fallen for a forgery.

It has made headlines for posting controversial videos of combat in Iraq.

The site gained international attention in April when it posted a 2007 video said to show a U.S. helicopter attack in Iraq killing a dozen civilians, including two unarmed Reuters journalists.

At the time, Maj. Shawn Turner, a U.S. military spokesman, said that "all evidence available supported the conclusion by those forces that they were engaging armed insurgents and not civilians."

Pfc. Bradley Manning, 22, suspected of leaking a classified 2007 video, has been charged by the U.S. military with eight violations of the U.S. Criminal Code for transferring classified data, according to a charge sheet released by the military earlier this month.

Attempts to reach Manning's military defense attorney, Capt. Paul Bouchard, were unsuccessful Sunday. However, U.S. Army spokesman Col. Tom Collins has said Bouchard would not speak to the media about the charges.

Assange says WikiLeaks has attempted to put together a legal team to defend Manning, something it will do for any "alleged" whistle-blower that runs into legal trouble because of WikiLeaks.

Assange, a former teen hacker who launched the site in 2007, denies that WikiLeaks has put troops in danger.

"There certainly have been people who have lost elections as a result of material being on WikiLeaks," he said.

"There have been prosecutions because of material being on WikiLeaks. There have been legislative reforms because of material being on WikiLeaks," he said. "What has not happened is anyone being physically harmed as a result."

The website held back about 15,000 documents from Afghanistan to protect individuals who informed on the Taliban, he said.

But he said he hoped his website would be "very dangerous" to "people who want to conduct wars in an abusive way."

"This material doesn't just reveal occasional abuse by the U.S. military," he said. "Of course it has U.S. military reporting on all sort of abuses by the Taliban. ... So it does describe the abuses by both sides in this war and that's how people can understand what's really going on and if they choose to support it or not."

Assange said the organization gets material from whistle-blowers in a variety of ways -- including postal mail. He said WikiLeaks vets it, releases it to the public and then defends itself against "the regular political or legal attack."

He said the organization rarely knows the identity of the source of the leak. "If we find out at some stage, we destroy that information as soon as possible," he said.

CNN's Barbara Starr contributed to this report.

"There is but one thing of real value: to cultivate truth and justice and to live without anger in the midst of lying and unjust men"

The way the pilot and the weapons officer laugh it off as if they're playing a computer is something you don't get in the British Army.

There's pride, professionalism and tradition over here.

I always hated training with American soldiers on exercise. Fun, nice enough guys but not worthy of the uniform

BP: I have always liked your posts and appreciated your insights from "across the pond", but I have to admit, your above quote seems a bit harsh. Anyone even remotely involved in the military know that "Military Intelligence" is an oxymoron. I dont think for a minute those gunners on the Apaches knew there were friendly photogs in that group. Their "gallows" humour is not unusual with people in combat.

If you trained with American soldiers who were not "worthy of the uniform", I hope and pray THEY were anomalies and an extremely small group. Otherwise, your brush is, indeed, very broad.

Many years ago, I trained with an SAS officer named Phil Singleton. A stand up, A-1 soldier in my book. But I was absolutely sure there may have been one or two "wankers" in his outfit.

British_Pharaoh wrote:The way the pilot and the weapons officer laugh it off as if they're playing a computer is something you don't get in the British Army.

There's pride, professionalism and tradition over here.

I always hated training with American soldiers on exercise. Fun, nice enough guys but not worthy of the uniform.

There have been a ton of ignorant statements made on these boards, but you really did just take the cake. Are you fucking kidding me with that comment?

You are so dead nuts on though, check out the pride, professionalism and tradition. Nevermind, it was probably Americans with British accents because you would never see something like that in the British Army.

I know dozens of men who currently wear the uniform and they are more than worthy. I suspect there are quite a few on these boards too. You owe them all an apology. Whatever mistakes were made will be taken care of.

He who hesitates is lost, or in this case, dead. It's a shame that innocent people were killed, but if I'm in the middle of a war and I don't want to get shot at, I'm not going to stand by a bunch of guys with guns.

How the hell can a news orginization claim these people weren't insurgents? Because they were standing around? Seems to me that being armed, in a war zone, makes you part of the war.

And of course the troops are speaking callously, are they supposed to think about the wives and children and grandparents of the very people who are trying to kill them? Coping mechanism.

Empathy. How many times have those troops been shot at by guys with guns walking in the street? It would only take once for me to have a similiar reaction.

Orenthal wrote:We used to "try" and kill civilians in previous wars. Poor MacArthur was right, we sure don't fight wars to win. The people leaking confidential information get more positive pub then our soldiers.

I wouldn't even worry about the pom. The Redcoats have been trying for the last 100 years to be irrelavent.

Are you longing for the days where we did try to kill civilians?

Also, war is hell, and the people here should know what is being done in the name whatever we are doing still in Afghanistan, and judge it. Strange that Obama's boys in D.C. are pissed that this is coming to light, since he had a plan to get us out of Bush's wars.

Orenthal wrote:We used to "try" and kill civilians in previous wars. Poor MacArthur was right, we sure don't fight wars to win. The people leaking confidential information get more positive pub then our soldiers.

I wouldn't even worry about the pom. The Redcoats have been trying for the last 100 years to be irrelavent.

Are you longing for the days where we did try to kill civilians?

Yes. I don't even really care that you used the phrase "longing for" when the context of my statement was about winning a war. War is in and of itself a dirty business, victory is determined by who kills the most people and breaks the most stuff. You can fight a "war of example" all day long, hell we have been doing that since WWII.

You can basically kiss my ass, because you'd be hating on any type of confrontation between The United States and anybody. Who really gives a fuck that that country was used the base of operations for 9-11.

Hitler bombed London, the allies bombed Dresden, we dropped a freaking nuke on two population centers, that is what you do to defeat an enemy. Demoralize the people to a point that they turn on the regime. In Afghanistan if that isn't possible, just start killing anything you think is an enemy. I'll sleep fine at night.

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

Orenthal wrote:We used to "try" and kill civilians in previous wars. Poor MacArthur was right, we sure don't fight wars to win. The people leaking confidential information get more positive pub then our soldiers.

I wouldn't even worry about the pom. The Redcoats have been trying for the last 100 years to be irrelavent.

Are you longing for the days where we did try to kill civilians?

Yes. I don't even really care that you used the phrase "longing for" when the context of my statement was about winning a war. War is in and of itself a dirty business, victory is determined by who kills the most people and breaks the most stuff. You can fight a "war of example" all day long, hell we have been doing that since WWII.

You can basically kiss my ass, because you'd be hating on any type of confrontation between The United States and anybody. Who really gives a fuck that that country was used the base of operations for 9-11.

Hitler bombed London, the allies bombed Dresden, we dropped a freaking nuke on two population centers, that is what you do to defeat an enemy. Demoralize the people to a point that they turn on the regime. In Afghanistan if that isn't possible, just start killing anything you think is an enemy. I'll sleep fine at night.

What will define "winning" in Afghanistan? And do we really want the people turning on the regime in power there?

And yeah, I'm antiwar. I'll neither apologize nor kiss anyone's ass for that. There isn't a war we are in that is defensible at the present, but let's just kill people randomly until the magic happens.

Throughout history, war has been the main driver behind the proliferation and innovation of technology. Sorry to say it, but up until this very moment war pretty much defines what it means to be human (on a macro scale, not on an individual basis).

If you were an outsider (IE extraterrestrial), and a picture book was created to show how we got to where we are from day 1, it would be pages and pages full of a bloody mess. I would prefer people across the world would be completely tolerant of each other, but at this point in our evolution, its simply not in our nature. When the shit hits the fan, we want resources, security, safety, and the comfort knowing that the guy next door will get his shit ruined if he oversteps his boundaries or poses a threat to our livelihood. I know that's seeing things at a 50,000 ft view, but I don't think its off base.

EARTH: WHERE PREEMPTIVE COUNTER-STRIKING HAPPENS

"All Beckett needs to do to cap off this mess is order some fried chicken and beer" – 5/10/12 before Beckett got chased in the 3rd at Fenway.

Feh. Everyone wants that 'cept the arms dealers and politicians and a few of us bloodthirsty bastards who've stood on the 'walls'

There's no time for that here at this point. This is now about reminding Limeys who walk around with sticks up their asses as if its still the 16th Century, that we're tired of not only kicking their pompous asses but saving them as well.

British Petroleum here should be more concerned about his country turning to Shria Law than US Soldiers capping friendlies.

Maybe if he'da been more than a desk jockey and actually heard and faced an AK 47 he'd have a different opinion.

My guess is that his nights were spent in beer halls and never on the perimeter and the topics being discussed were about his email being down and not bullets that whizzed past his ears

Eh?

Hope is a moment now long pastThe Shadow of Death is the one I castKoo koo ka joob....I am the Walrus

Orenthal wrote:Hitler bombed London, the allies bombed Dresden, we dropped a freaking nuke on two population centers, that is what you do to defeat an enemy. Demoralize the people to a point that they turn on the regime. In Afghanistan if that isn't possible, just start killing anything you think is an enemy. I'll sleep fine at night.

By the way, I really have to revisit this. Dresden was a war crime. Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn't a military decision; it was all about politics. A good starting point can be found here: http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

The generals and admirals saw no need to drop the bomb on Japan, but Truman, in his infinite wisdom, did.

By the way, I really have to revisit this. Dresden was a war crime. Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn't a military decision; it was all about politics. A good starting point can be found here: http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

You pay people to beat you up to get your rocks off, don't you?

This was discussed not too long ago. Its was determined by consensus that the bombs should have been dropped on Tokyo and not Hiroshima, Yokohama and not Nagasaki.

Another interesting bit of info would be photos of Detroit and Nagasaki 1950 and photos of Detroit and Nagasaki today.

There is a very solid argument to be made that the worst thing to happen to American industry in WWII was that it never got bombed.

Morally you have no argument whatsoever. You're already bankrupt.

Hope is a moment now long pastThe Shadow of Death is the one I castKoo koo ka joob....I am the Walrus

By the way, I really have to revisit this. Dresden was a war crime. Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn't a military decision; it was all about politics. A good starting point can be found here: http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

You pay people to beat you up to get your rocks off, don't you?

This was discussed not too long ago. Its was determined by consensus that the bombs should have been dropped on Tokyo and not Hiroshima, Yokohama and not Nagasaki.

Another interesting bit of info would be photos of Detroit and Nagasaki 1950 and photos of Detroit and Nagasaki today.

There is also a very solid argument to be made that the worst thing to happen to American industry in WWII was that it never got bombed.

Morally you have no argument whatsoever. You're already bankrupt.

Eisenhower, and most of the rest of the military leadership at the end of WWII determined there was no need to drop the bomb anywhere in Japan. Damn those morally bankrupt people who spent their whole lives studying war.

BTW, calling someone morally bankrupt for showing that the Japanese were prepared to surrender with the same terms they received after the bombing, while noting that the 200,000 innocent lives lost in that unnecessary bombing didn't have to be lost, is... interesting.

Also, I'd love to know who the geniuses were that decided by "consensus" that Tokyo should have been bombed instead of the other cities. Bombing Japan into anarchy somehow would have been morally better? I really don't know what your point is there.

Fire Marshall Bill wrote:There is a very solid argument to be made that the worst thing to happen to American industry in WWII was that it never got bombed.

I can't believe I ignored this bit of genius. Does anyone, other than this idiot, want to claim that Detroit or any other American city would be better off right now if a nuclear bomb had been dropped on it in 1945? I'd love to hear the reasoning behind that.

Fire Marshall Bill wrote:There is a very solid argument to be made that the worst thing to happen to American industry in WWII was that it never got bombed.

I can't believe I ignored this bit of genius. Does anyone, other than this idiot, want to claim that Detroit or any other American city would be better off right now if a nuclear bomb had been dropped on it in 1945? I'd love to hear the reasoning behind that.

Absolutely not.

We'd all be far better off if Detroit was nuked today actually.

Except for the prevailing winds issue that is.

However, with the current state of affairs in Detroit, nobody would waste the uranium there.

Fire Marshall Bill wrote:Yo, Hyperbolic Boi, I never said one word about nuking Detroit.

But yeah, why not?

My first choices however would be Mecca and Jerusalem. Rome, too, if you can get the artwork out first.

You get to keep the statue of David and his little dick

Reducing Jerusalem, Mecca, and Vatican City to dust is a very tempting thought. I think that fighting the nonsense that comes from those cities is best fought with rational arguments, and hope that the rest of the world shames the believers into finally catching up with the 21st century.

Erie Warrior wrote:He who hesitates is lost, or in this case, dead. It's a shame that innocent people were killed, but if I'm in the middle of a war and I don't want to get shot at, I'm not going to stand by a bunch of guys with guns.

How the hell can a news orginization claim these people weren't insurgents? Because they were standing around? Seems to me that being armed, in a war zone, makes you part of the war.

And of course the troops are speaking callously, are they supposed to think about the wives and children and grandparents of the very people who are trying to kill them? Coping mechanism.

Empathy. How many times have those troops been shot at by guys with guns walking in the street? It would only take once for me to have a similiar reaction.

War is hell.

The most I've ever agreed with Erie Warrior.

Isolation from the reality of war has made people naive. But that's on the naive people to toughen up, not on the soldier to start giving people in his scope the benefit of the doubt.

Erie Warrior wrote:He who hesitates is lost, or in this case, dead. It's a shame that innocent people were killed, but if I'm in the middle of a war and I don't want to get shot at, I'm not going to stand by a bunch of guys with guns.

How the hell can a news orginization claim these people weren't insurgents? Because they were standing around? Seems to me that being armed, in a war zone, makes you part of the war.

And of course the troops are speaking callously, are they supposed to think about the wives and children and grandparents of the very people who are trying to kill them? Coping mechanism.

Empathy. How many times have those troops been shot at by guys with guns walking in the street? It would only take once for me to have a similiar reaction.

War is hell.

The most I've ever agreed with Erie Warrior.

Isolation from the reality of war has made people naive. But that's on the naive people to toughen up, not on the soldier to start giving people in his scope the benefit of the doubt.

So the reality of war is that everyone is a potential enemy? That sounds like a reason to just nuke a country into oblivion instead of sending soldiers there to risk their lives.

jfiling wrote:So the reality of war is that everyone is a potential enemy? That sounds like a reason to just nuke a country into oblivion instead of sending soldiers there to risk their lives.

Yes, it would seem to be the case if you'd like to return from said war standing. Everyone not wearing your flag is potentially trying to kill you and even those in your gear don't always seem to be trying too hard to keep you alive.

All based on what I've read and people I've talked to mind you. I never served and, as mentioned before, I'll go to my grave with that as my biggest regret. But in a foreign land and in a hostile environment, it would sure seem to be completely ignorant to assume any differently.

That doesn't mean you shoot without discretion. Clearly.

But if it's a coin-flip situation or there is sufficient doubt? Ties lose. He who hesitates may be dead. My family is more important than theirs. My buddies mean more than they do.

BP's post reminds me of Fleet Week in NYC, this year. I was asking on a NY message board where about 4-5 of my former shipmates (that are still on Active Duty) could go to grab beers in the W. Village and a few of the locals responded with, "Shouldn't you guys be worrying about Afghanistan? How can you drink with what's going on in the gulf!!"

The negative media spin from both parties regarding the wars has densensitized America to how hard it is on the servicemen and women over there. It's creating a social viewpoint similar to the Vietnam war and the backlash from the troops that served there. Another casualty of the polarized political system and how important it is to slander the current administration by pumping negative press at the situation. (be it Bush or Obama)

The VAST OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of US Armed Forces are examples of the best our country has to offer. They sacrifice anything resembling a normal life, 3/4 of the year away from family and friends, and all to frequently, their lives. If you consider most of them unfit to wear the uniform, then you're buying into the hype or using a ridiculously small sample size to make your point. I served in the Navy for 9 years, working regularly with joint forces, and I worked overseas in areas that we weren't welcome in. Spent 6 months in a war zone. I'm stull damn fucking proud to have known nearly every person I served with. Not always the brightest or the sons of industry, but always well intentioned and happy to serve their country.

Repeat: Happy to ignore their own political leanings and give up a normal life JUST to protect the civil liberties of the people around them. I've got a sample size of thousands, not the twisted bullshit you see on youtube in a carefully doctored video.

I'm sad for two things in a modern wartime environment:

1) The overwhelming amount of rules, regulations, hand-holding, and policy that makes trying to do the right thing an incredibly difficult decision.

2) The constant glare of the media capturing your every waking moment and every bad decision, so that it can be returned to the American public and criticized by the masses who have no fucking idea what it's like to be in that position.

BP, if you want to debate the merits of a conflict that has no reasonable happy ending, or the politcs behind the decision to enter the conflict in the first place? Fire away. Plenty of good points either way.

Slandering United States Military members and saying they are "unfit" to wear the uniform? Ignorant, sensationalist, and uninformed. Get a larger picture before you throw mud at people we owe our quality of life to. I've always enjoyed your posts here before and hate to see this.

Erie Warrior is pretty much spot on. It's not a healthy situation, but there's a lot of coping mechanisms and bluster that goes with being in that situation. I promise that if you recorded daily life in any area you can take the 2% of the video that fits your purpose and make anyone look like a villain. They are good kids living in an impossible situation.

</rant> sorry for the novel.

Check me out at Dawgsbynature, where I write stuff, or @twitter as Josh Finney.

Gradysmanldy wrote:BP's post reminds me of Fleet Week in NYC, this year. I was asking on a NY message board where about 4-5 of my former shipmates (that are still on Active Duty) could go to grab beers in the W. Village and a few of the locals responded with, "Shouldn't you guys be worrying about Afghanistan? How can you drink with what's going on in the gulf!!"

The negative media spin from both parties regarding the wars has densensitized America to how hard it is on the servicemen and women over there. It's creating a social viewpoint similar to the Vietnam war and the backlash from the troops that served there. Another casualty of the polarized political system and how important it is to slander the current administration by pumping negative press at the situation. (be it Bush or Obama)

The VAST OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of US Armed Forces are examples of the best our country has to offer. They sacrifice anything resembling a normal life, 3/4 of the year away from family and friends, and all to frequently, their lives. If you consider most of them unfit to wear the uniform, then you're buying into the hype or using a ridiculously small sample size to make your point. I served in the Navy for 9 years, working regularly with joint forces, and I worked overseas in areas that we weren't welcome in. Spent 6 months in a war zone. I'm stull damn fucking proud to have known nearly every person I served with. Not always the brightest or the sons of industry, but always well intentioned and happy to serve their country.

Repeat: Happy to ignore their own political leanings and give up a normal life JUST to protect the civil liberties of the people around them. I've got a sample size of thousands, not the twisted bullshit you see on youtube in a carefully doctored video.

I'm sad for two things in a modern wartime environment:

1) The overwhelming amount of rules, regulations, hand-holding, and policy that makes trying to do the right thing an incredibly difficult decision.

2) The constant glare of the media capturing your every waking moment and every bad decision, so that it can be returned to the American public and criticized by the masses who have no fucking idea what it's like to be in that position.

BP, if you want to debate the merits of a conflict that has no reasonable happy ending, or the politcs behind the decision to enter the conflict in the first place? Fire away. Plenty of good points either way.

Slandering United States Military members and saying they are "unfit" to wear the uniform? Ignorant, sensationalist, and uninformed. Get a larger picture before you throw mud at people we owe our quality of life to. I've always enjoyed your posts here before and hate to see this.

Erie Warrior is pretty much spot on. It's not a healthy situation, but there's a lot of coping mechanisms and bluster that goes with being in that situation. I promise that if you recorded daily life in any area you can take the 2% of the video that fits your purpose and make anyone look like a villain. They are good kids living in an impossible situation.

Orenthal wrote:Link me one that says they were about to surrender, I link two that says they worshipped the emperor as a god, and would die to the last man...

Saladin was a smart man...

Depends who "they" are. I already gave one link that the military brass believed Japan was on the verge, but here's something even better showing that Truman knew as well that Japan had offered to surrender 7 months before they actually did, with the same terms the Japanese proposed.

It was only after the war that the American public learned about Japan's efforts to bring the conflict to an end. Chicago Tribune reporter Walter Trohan, for example, was obliged by wartime censorship to withhold for seven months one of the most important stories of the war.

In an article that finally appeared August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Trohan revealed that on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. (The complete text of Trohan's article is in the Winter 1985-86 Journal, pp. 508-512.)

This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor. Specifically, the terms of these peace overtures included:

* Complete surrender of all Japanese forces and arms, at home, on island possessions, and in occupied countries. * Occupation of Japan and its possessions by Allied troops under American direction. * Japanese relinquishment of all territory seized during the war, as well as Manchuria, Korea and Taiwan. * Regulation of Japanese industry to halt production of any weapons and other tools of war. * Release of all prisoners of war and internees. * Surrender of designated war criminals.

The authenticity of the Trohan article was never challenged by the White House or the State Department, and for very good reason. After General MacArthur returned from Korea in 1951, his neighbor in the Waldorf Towers, former President Herbert Hoover, took the Trohan article to General MacArthur and the latter confirmed its accuracy in every detail and without qualification.

The main problem with dropping the bomb was, as I said above, the military leadership was against it, and long-term it was a bad idea because it caused the Soviets to kick start their nuclear weapons program. Eisenhower and MacArthur worried about using the bomb for that exact reason, and were proven right.

Fire Marshall Bill wrote:Hell, I'll bet if I looked hard enuff I could find a web page that says the sky is green or that peeker never shit in the woods and wiped his ass with toilet paper

Who the fuck uses toilet paper in the woods? If I'm lucky the leaves still have some green in them or I was smart enough to throw a paper towel around the sandwich in my pack.

As to the topic at hand, you know there ain't no convincing the people who know everything or are predisposed to requiring an alternative explanation to facts? I'm not gonna go off on the guy again. I'll save it for his next tin foil hat attack on a guy who tasers a fetus or something.

Always gonna be a lunatic fringe. They'll be the ones yelling the loudest that they're not it.

Fire Marshall Bill wrote:Hell, I'll bet if I looked hard enuff I could find a web page that says the sky is green or that peeker never shit in the woods and wiped his ass with toilet paper

Who the fuck uses toilet paper in the woods? If I'm lucky the leaves still have some green in them or I was smart enough to throw a paper towel around the sandwich in my pack.

As to the topic at hand, you know there ain't no convincing the people who know everything or are predisposed to requiring an alternative explanation to facts? I'm not gonna go off on the guy again. I'll save it for his next tin foil hat attack on a guy who tasers a fetus or something.

Always gonna be a lunatic fringe. They'll be the ones yelling the loudest that they're not it.

Yeah I meant poison ivy but I was in a hurry and had to leaf

Hope is a moment now long pastThe Shadow of Death is the one I castKoo koo ka joob....I am the Walrus